Spielberg's Munich : A review
After all the hype over Spielberg's Munich, I managed to see it last night. I had heard and read of the criticism against the film in particular by Jewish conservative columnists. Their main complaint as I understood it was that Spielberg morally equated the act of the terrorists with the acts of the Mossad agents; a very dangerous comparison indeed. The columnists pushing this line were the usual suspects, the same ones who support the war in Iraq, scorn the United Nations and international diplomacy; and are more comfortable when Israel is involved in some military operation or other then engaging in peace negotiations (that is Krauthammer, Brooks, Wieseltier, Levin from CAMERA, Jonah Goldberg amongst others).
My review of the film is mixed. On the one hand it does attempt to deal with the complex reality of assassinating terrorists (or extra-judicial killings whatever you want to call it) and the moral and legal ambiguities associated with it. It also questions the value of these kinds of operations and whether they in fact increase rather then reduce terrorism. It certainly does not condone terrorism or as critics contends morally equate the actions of terrorists with the actions of the Mossad. It certainly attempts to humanise terrorists and frames the motives of the terrorists in terms of Palestinian occupation/dispossession. I am not troubled by this. As a society we should be mature enough to accept this. This does not excuse their actions. Take for example when a crime is committed and the police investigate the case. Central to the police's investigation will be to consider the motive of the crime. The fact that there is a motive does not mean their actions are excusable; but it does help us to better understand the facts of the situation. There is nothing wrong with asking the "why" question.
The weakness of the film I found lay in the actual credibility of the story. From my readings of books by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, the Mossad agents as depicted in the film did not seem to describe the reality of how the Mossad would operate. I am sceptical that the Mossad would send 4 relatively unprofessional and untrained men to perform such a high responsibility task. I also doubt whether Mossad agents in the 1970's would have felt such moral angst or at least expressed it in the way depicted in the movie. There seemed in short something overly Holywood about the way the agents were presented - and lacked an authentic Israeli feel that I was expecting. A movie such as The Little Drummer Girl for me more accurately depicted the workings of the Mossad then this film, which to me really did not come close. Haaretz washington reporter Shmuel Rosner commenting on the film puts it as follows "Israelis don't speak to one another the way Spielberg thinks they do (they also don't speak English to one another, but what can you do), nor do they behave the way he portrays them as behaving. And most of them don't have significat (sic) doubts regarding the Israeli government's decision to hunt and assassinate the perpetrators of the massacre at the Munich Olympics".
Despite its faults, Munich is a film well worth seeing. The main critiques against the film are illfounded. The arguments against the film are being raised by the usual Jewish conservatives who are unable and unwilling to acknowledge any form of nuance. At the same time the historicity and authenticity of the film are for me aspects of the film which were lacking.
My review of the film is mixed. On the one hand it does attempt to deal with the complex reality of assassinating terrorists (or extra-judicial killings whatever you want to call it) and the moral and legal ambiguities associated with it. It also questions the value of these kinds of operations and whether they in fact increase rather then reduce terrorism. It certainly does not condone terrorism or as critics contends morally equate the actions of terrorists with the actions of the Mossad. It certainly attempts to humanise terrorists and frames the motives of the terrorists in terms of Palestinian occupation/dispossession. I am not troubled by this. As a society we should be mature enough to accept this. This does not excuse their actions. Take for example when a crime is committed and the police investigate the case. Central to the police's investigation will be to consider the motive of the crime. The fact that there is a motive does not mean their actions are excusable; but it does help us to better understand the facts of the situation. There is nothing wrong with asking the "why" question.
The weakness of the film I found lay in the actual credibility of the story. From my readings of books by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, the Mossad agents as depicted in the film did not seem to describe the reality of how the Mossad would operate. I am sceptical that the Mossad would send 4 relatively unprofessional and untrained men to perform such a high responsibility task. I also doubt whether Mossad agents in the 1970's would have felt such moral angst or at least expressed it in the way depicted in the movie. There seemed in short something overly Holywood about the way the agents were presented - and lacked an authentic Israeli feel that I was expecting. A movie such as The Little Drummer Girl for me more accurately depicted the workings of the Mossad then this film, which to me really did not come close. Haaretz washington reporter Shmuel Rosner commenting on the film puts it as follows "Israelis don't speak to one another the way Spielberg thinks they do (they also don't speak English to one another, but what can you do), nor do they behave the way he portrays them as behaving. And most of them don't have significat (sic) doubts regarding the Israeli government's decision to hunt and assassinate the perpetrators of the massacre at the Munich Olympics".
Despite its faults, Munich is a film well worth seeing. The main critiques against the film are illfounded. The arguments against the film are being raised by the usual Jewish conservatives who are unable and unwilling to acknowledge any form of nuance. At the same time the historicity and authenticity of the film are for me aspects of the film which were lacking.
posted by SJ at 4:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home